Rural Wind Energy Development Act

Madam President, I rise with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and others who will be here to discuss the Dorgan- Grassley-Ben Nelson, et al, amendment we put together to this bill. Let me make a couple points. First of all, I don't think there is anybody in this Chamber who can claim they have a stronger record for farm programs than I do, having been in Congress a good long while. Family farms are very important to me. I believe it is an important element of this country's economy and culture to have the yard lights dotting the landscape of America, people living on the land trying to raise a family, raise a crop, and produce some livestock. That is very important. I have spent a lot of time supporting family farming in this country.

The legislation brought to us by the Agriculture Committee is a good bill. I applaud my colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, and my colleague, Senator Conrad, for his work, and so many others. This is a good piece of legislation. It improves slightly the safety net so when there is trouble and tough times, family farmers understand there is a safety net. It provides a disaster title for the first time in a long time, so when there is a natural weather disaster or natural disaster hitting family farmers, they can rely on this disaster title.

There are a lot of provisions that are good in this bill, including some improvement with respect to the issue of payment limits. They eliminated the three-entity rule. That is a step forward. I appreciate that. I like what has been done, and I want to improve it because there are a couple things that can be done that should improve it, in my judgment. These deal with the issue of payment limits.

Let me start with this proposition: Does anybody in this Chamber believe and want to stand up and say: Do you know what we ought to do with the farm program? Let's give farm program benefits to people who don't farm. Does anybody want to stand up and say, yes, that is our policy, that makes a lot of sense? Let's provide farm program checks to people who don't farm.

It is happening today. It will happen under this bill unless we make this correction. My colleague from Iowa and my colleague from Georgia missed all the applause I was giving them. They have done a great job. I have applauded this bill coming out of the committee. I said I want to improve it because this committee didn't finish the work on payment limitations.

Two things: No. 1, we ought to limit farm program payments to those who are farming. We ought not be sending farm program checks in the mail to people who never farmed and will never farm. Yet that is happening and will continue to happen. No. 2, there ought to be some reasonable limit on payments.

My colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Nelson from Nebraska and others, have joined me in saying that limit ought to be $250,000 per farm. That is a reasonable limit, a very reasonable limit.

Let me describe how it works. We still have some holes we need to patch. The Houston Chronicle described it--cowboy starter kids they called it. We have a situation in which if land had certain base acres for a crop, you didn't have to raise that crop or produce that crop. You didn't have to plant the crop at all in order to get a check. Down in Texas, they have what are called cowboy starter kits. You can have 20 acres of land or maybe 10 acres of land that were used to produce rice 20 years ago and divide it up--have a house on an acre, run a horse on the other 8 or over 10, hay it once a year, and you get a farm program payment, despite the fact you have never farmed and never will farm and that land hasn't produced a rice crop for 20 years.

Is that reasonable? I don't think it is reasonable. It will give rise to the kind of stories we have heard repeatedly, stories that describe who is getting the benefits of the farm program payments we thought were supposed to be going to help family farmers through tough times. Then we have someone with a cowboy starter kit on 10 or 20 acres who gets a payment who has never farmed and never will farm on land that isn't producing a crop.

The proposal Senator Grassley and I offer today says let's not do that. Let's say, if you get a payment, you have to be farming, No. 1. And No. 2, there ought to be a limit. I normally wouldn't use a name such as this, but I am doing it because this was in the San Francisco Chronicle. This was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle, and it shows payments. This is California. We could do this for a lot of areas. This shows payments to 20 individuals and farm businesses, among the top 20 finishers from 2003 to 2005. Constance Bowles from, San Francisco, $1.21 million; George Bowles, same family, $1.190 million. That is $2.3 million to these folks.

As I indicated, this is a San Francisco Chronicle story and is an example of what is happening to undermine this farm program. Let me read from the San Francisco Chronicle:

A prominent San Francisco patron of the arts, Constance

Bowles--heiress of an early California cattle baron, widow of

a former director of UC Berkeley's Bancroft library--was the

largest recipient of federal cotton subsidies in the state of

California between 2003 and 2005, collecting more than $1.2

million, according to the latest available data.

Bowles, 88, of San Francisco, collected the $1.2 million in

mostly cotton payments through her family's 6,000-acre farm,

the Bowles Farming Co., in Los Banos [California]. She could

not be reached for comment.

Another family member, George ``Corky'' Bowles, who died in

2005, collected $1.19 million over the same period. George

Bowles once ran the farm but lived on . . . Telegraph Hill. A

collector of rare books and 18th century English porcelain,

he served as a director of the San Francisco Opera and

trustee of the Fine Arts Museum.

The farm is now run by Phillip Bowles, who also lives in

San Francisco. He told KGO television that he's no fan of

subsidies, but if the big cotton growers in Texas get them,

so should he. Many of these businesses are getting 20 to 30,

sometimes 40 percent of their gross revenues directly from

the government, Phillip Bowles told KGO. I don't have a good

explanation for that. Somebody else might, but it beats me.

Well, if we want this sort of thing to continue, then let's not pass this amendment. This is a very simple amendment Senator Grassley and I offer, which says, A, you ought to be a farmer if you are going to get a farm program payment. That is, you ought to have some active involvement in the farm. Our definition doesn't require you to live out there, but it requires you to have some active involvement. That is No. 1.

That is so reasonable that I guess I would like somebody to stand up and say, you know what, we don't think the farm program is just for farmers. We give educational loans here in this country. We appropriate money for them. We won't let you get an education loan if you are not going to go to college. There are subsidized home loans. You don't get a home loan unless you are going to buy a home. We are going to give assistance in the form of farm program paychecks, or checks to people who don't farm? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Now, some will say, well, we have corrected all that. No, they haven't. They haven't. Let me explain why. They intended to, or they wanted to correct it. There was going to be an amendment passed that would correct it, but it was not offered and not voted on. But one of my colleagues said, we have a $200,000 limitation on payments and Senators Grassley and Dorgan are saying $250,000. Well, that is a little too clever. The payment limitation means you still get the loan deficiency payment under the commodity loans--you still get unlimited payments for all of the production, for the largest farm in America, you get a price support in the form of an LDP under every single bushel of product you produce. It doesn't matter how big you are. You can farm in four States, if you want to, but you are going to get a support price under everything you produce.

Does that make any sense to anybody? You have a payment limitation without a limit? That is not a payment limitation. That is unlimited payments in the LDP for the biggest farms in America, for every single thing they produce.

Senator Grassley and I offer a very simple proposition, and that proposition is a $250,000 payment limit and

that you have to be involved in farming in order to get it.

Now I showed this San Francisco article. This is California, but I could show this for many States. But when one operation gets over $35 million in 5 years, I say that is farming the farm program. When 75 percent of all payments go to 10 percent of the farmers receiving commodity subsidies, you know what is happening. Much of that is going to the biggest farmers, the biggest corporate farms in the country, big agrifactories, and it is producing the revenue by which they buy out the land and bid against family properties for their property right next door. It is happening all over the country.

If one believes that is what we should do, then God bless you, you should not vote for this amendment of ours. But I believe this country has benefitted by the network of family producers out in the country. Some say, well, that is hopelessly old fashioned. You don't understand that in our part of the country we have people who have millions and millions of dollars of revenue and they are important to the economy as well. If you want to farm two or three counties, you ought to be able to do that. I just don't think the Federal Government has the responsibility to be your banker.

I believe, and when I came here I believed it and I still believe it, that a farm program ought to be a safety net that says to family farms, when you run into trouble, you have a safety net--a bridge over troubled times. We want to do that because farming is different. But providing a safety net for families is very different than providing a set of golden arches for the biggest corporate agrifactories in this country.

I don't need four reasons or three reasons or even two reasons, just give me one good reason we ought to collect taxes from hard-working Americans and say we are going to transfer that money to some corporate agrifactory that gets $30 million in 5 years. Give me one good reason to do that. I don't think it exists.

Let me end where I began. I am a strong supporter of family farming, a strong supporter of agriculture. I like what this committee has done. I appreciate very much the work of Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss. I want to improve this bill.

Let me conclude with something a rancher and a farmer just west of Bismarck, ND wrote once. He is a guy who is a terrific writer and he asked the question--and I have asked it before on the floor of the Senate, and it describes why I support family farming and why this amendment is necessary--What is it worth? What is it worth for a kid to know how to weld a seam? What is it worth for a kid to know how to teach a calf to suck milk from a bucket? What is it worth for a kid to know how to grease a combine? What is it worth for a kid to know how to butcher a hog? What is it worth for a kid to know how to plow a field? What is it worth for a kid to know how build a lean-to? What is it worth for a kid to know how to pour cement?

You know something, farm kids know all of those things, and the only university in America where they teach it is on the family farm. Fortunately, in World War II, we sent millions of them from American farms all across the world. They could fix anything. What is it worth to have all that knowledge? You learn that on family farms across this country. That is why family farming is so important. I say, today let's stand up for a good safety net for family farmers. Let's not ruin the farm program. And we will, as sure as I am standing here, ruin the farm program and ruin the opportunity to enact a good farm program in the future, unless we do what we know is necessary.

We have a farm program that is designed to be a safety net and to help family farmers through tough times, but we cannot do that by pretending this circumstance doesn't exist, whereby in the current farm program we give farm program benefits to people who have never farmed and never will, and we provide farm program benefits to the tune of millions of dollars to the biggest corporate agrifactories in this country. That is not what I came to Congress to do.

I hope we can stand up today on behalf of family farmers and say you matter, and we are going to manifest that in the vote on this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

How much time remains on the two sides?

Mr. President, my intention would be to use some time and then perhaps yield to my colleague from Georgia, and then I would prefer that we be able to close since it is our amendment, and then we would be done with the time. If that would be satisfactory to my colleague from Georgia, the ranking member, I would proceed on that basis.

Mr. President, let me begin, as a couple of my colleagues have--more specifically, my colleague from Arkansas--I have great respect for Senator Lincoln, Senator Pryor, Senator Chambliss, and others here who may disagree with Senator Grassley and myself. I very much respect their position and do not in any way denigrate a position or a philosophy or a policy choice they have made. I do think, however, this is a real choice and an important choice, and I come at it from a different perspective. I believe very strongly if we do not do the right thing, one day we won't be talking about a farm program because there won't be a farm program.

The fact is most people in this country don't farm. Only a small percentage of people live out in the country, out on the farm, under a yard light, trying to raise a family, trying to raise a crop against all the odds. They put a seed in and in the spring they hope it grows and they hope it doesn't rain too much, they hope it rains enough; they hope it doesn't hail; they hope crop disease doesn't come; and they hope that at the end of the summer, perhaps during the harvest season, they get in and harvest that land and they have a crop that comes out of the ground. Then they hope if they were lucky enough to get through all of that and get a crop and drive it to the country elevator, that they might get a decent price for it. They live on hope. The only way people living on a farm in the country can exist is living on hope. They are eternal optimists, believing that if they put a crop in in the spring, that putting that seed into that soil is going to somehow sprout into something bigger, and that at the end of the growing season, they have an opportunity to make a decent living. That is what it is about--because farmers live on hope--but because, in most cases, when international wild price swings occur and the bottom falls out of the grain market, if we don't have a safety net across those price valleys, so those family farmers get economic leverage, the opportunity to make it from one side to the other, they get wiped out. The same is true when a natural disaster comes along.

There are some big enterprises that have the economic strength to get through it. Perhaps when price declines, when disasters hit, they can get through it, but the family farmer doesn't. They get washed away, completely washed away. Then you have the auction sale. You have the yard sale, the auction sale, and that family farmer is gone. It goes on all across this country.

This country decided to do something very important. It decided to say it matters that when you fly across this country tonight, that you are able to look down and see people populating the prairies, populating the rural areas with yard lights and family farms. Look down sometime and see where they all live. Fewer and fewer of them live out in the country. There are fewer and fewer neighbors. But we are trying and struggling mightily to say to family farmers, when you are out there trying to run a family farm and raise a family and raise a crop, if you run into trouble, if you run into a tough patch, we want to help you. That is what this safety net is about.

Now this safety net has grown into a set of golden arches for some. Some of the biggest corporate agrifactories in the country suck millions of dollars out of this program. Some of them are farming the farm program--millions and millions of dollars. Is that what we believe this safety net should be about? Is it, really? Does anyone here believe that those who have never farmed and are never going to farm should receive a farm program payment? Is there anybody who believes that? Because that is what is going to happen. It is what is happening now.

According to some pretty good research that has been done on who receives and would receive the payments under the current system, there are what they call ``down south cowboy starter kits.'' I described that before. It is somebody who subdivides some land that used to produce a crop and still gets a direct payment on a crop that is not produced anymore. So they subdivide it and build a house on part of it and run a horse on another and hay it once a year, and lo and behold, someone who has never farmed and never will, living on ground that has not produced a crop for 20 years, is going to go to the mailbox some day and open up an envelope from the Federal Government and it is going to say: Congratulations. You get a farm program payment. That is exactly what happens today, and it is what is going to happen with this bill.

I support the farm bill that came out of this committee, but I want to improve it because there is a glaring hole. The hole is that under this bill, non-farmers could get farm program payments, and the hole that is there is an unlimited opportunity to get loan deficiency payments on the LDP or the marketing loan portion. My colleague will say: Well, we have a $200,000 cap on farm program payments. But that is not true; they don't have a $200,000 cap. They have a $200,000 cap on the direct payment and the countercyclical payment, but the third piece, the marketing loan and the loan deficiency payment, is unlimited--no cap at all. The biggest farm in the country, on every single bushel of commodity they produce, will get a price protection in the form of a safety net from the American taxpayer. I don't think that adds up.

I described a few moments ago a wonderful--apparently a wonderful woman in San Francisco, a patron of the arts. I had a picture I decided not to use because I don't think it is fair to her, but she was in the San Francisco Chronicle; they did run a picture of her. Her name is Constance Bowles. She was the largest recipient of farm program funds in San Francisco. She received $1.2 million, her husband received $1.1 million. Another fellow still runs the 6,000 acres. He is receiving money. He says: Well, I don't know why I am getting this money, but if they are--if cotton and rice folks in Texas are going to get it, then I think I ought to get it as well. I don't know. Do people think this is what we ought to be doing? Do you think this represents a safety net? It doesn't look like it to me. It looks like a glaring loophole.

The committee made some improvements. I said that when I started. The three-entity rule is gone. That was something that was abusive, and that is gone. I think that is progress. But I am telling my colleagues more needs to be done, because if we pass this bill as is, people who have never farmed and never will, will still receive farm program payments. For land that hasn't produced a crop for 20 years, they will still be able to get farm program payments. In my judgment, that is not reform.

I believe when we read stories--and we will--when we read stories that operations--the big corporate agrifactory gets $35 million in 5 years, I think a lot of the American people reasonably will ask the question: What does this have to do with the safety net to help family farmers through tough times? Again, if we are for change and reform in a constructive way that says let's do the right thing, then we will pass the amendment I have offered with Senator Grassley, Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, and others, because we think it is the right thing to do.

Someone said during this debate: This will injure the safety net. No, no. Exactly the opposite. This is the one thing we can do that will preserve and strengthen the safety net. If we don't do this, we won't have a safety net at some point in the years ahead. It will all be gone because the American people will say: If you can't do it right, we are not going to let you do it at all. That is why I believe this is important.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains?

Madam President, to suggest that perhaps we believe that farmers were getting too much money, nothing could be further from the truth. A whole lot of farmers are not getting enough help when they need it. The reason is because we don't have enough money in the farm program to provide a decent safety net. We have money leaking out the back door in the form of millions of dollars of payments to big corporate agrifactories. I have some examples. We have all heard these and read about them.

Constance Bowles, a prominent San Francisco art collector, from 2003 to 2005 received $1.2 million. Her husband received an equivalent amount during that period. Mark Burkett, a bonafide farmer, received payments for corn, wheat, cotton, peanuts, and sorghum from 2003 to 2005 totaling $1.8 million. Tommy Dildine collected $1.04 million. By the way, his wife Betty received exactly the same amount down to the penny. That is just over $2 million for that couple. I could go on.

Is this a safety net helping family farmers? I don't think so. There is nothing, as I indicated previously, in this legislation that stops some of the practices I described earlier.

My colleague said this issue of cowboy starter kits--I am tired hearing about cowboy starter kits. The USDA can shut that down. Yes, they can, but they won't. Why wouldn't we shut down a loophole that says somebody

who has never farmed and never will farm and living on land that hasn't produced a crop for 20 years ought to open the mailbox and get a check from the Federal Government, a farm program payment? Why wouldn't we close that loophole? Why? Because this bill doesn't go far enough and won't close it and those who are opposing us on the floor of the Senate today don't want it closed.

There are a lot of reasons to support family farming. Some say it is hopelessly old-fashioned, that farming has gone a different direction; it is mechanized, it is big, these are big operators farming from California to Maine. I believe it is not hopelessly old-fashioned to think we can keep families on the farm putting in a crop and contributing more than a crop, but contributing to building communities. They are the economic blood vessels that flow into our rural communities in our country.

There is a songwriter, a farmer, a rancher from North Dakota named Chuck Suchy. He sings a song about ``Saturday Night at the Bohemian Hall,'' where all the neighbors, all the farmers in the region gather and talk about the weather, they talk about their crops, and they talk about their families. It is an unusual culture and one that is important to this country. Some say that is yesterday, it is certainly not tomorrow. I, for one, hope we can construct a farm bill that is about tomorrow and that says to family farmers living on the land: We care about you. You are out there alone trying to make it against the odds. So we have a safety net. But some of my colleagues believe that safety net should be a set of golden arches, providing millions to the biggest agrifactories in this country. That is not what the farm program was designed to do.

When we do a program here, it doesn't mean it has to be perverted. We don't need snow removal in Hawaii, we don't need beachfront restoration in North Dakota, and we don't need to pervert a farm program by allowing millions of dollars--and, by the way, since the year 2000, $1.3 billion has been spent by this Federal Government in crop subsidies to people who are not farming--$1.3 billion. What might that have done in the form of health care for children who don't have health care or strengthening education so that when kids walk through a classroom door, we can believe they are walking into one of the best classrooms in the world? What might that have done in a whole range of areas where we could have improved life? What might that have done had that money gone in to strengthening the farm program itself or providing a disaster provision 2, 3 years ago for a farm program that doesn't have it?

Madam President, how much remains on my time?

Again, I know some think it is hopelessly old-fashioned to talk about family farms. I don't. I know some farms have been very successful and they have grown, and I don't mean at all they should be penalized. That is not my intention. We only have a certain amount of money, and we ought to provide the best safety net and farm program we can up to a certain amount of production because that is the money we have. But we ought not dissipate our energy, strength, and money on people who are not farming and they go to their mailbox and open a check, and they get a farm program payment even if they don't farm. That does not make sense to me.

Let me tell a story about a young man named Waylon. I was invited to the White House to the East Room some while ago when they brought in some youngsters who were heroes and the President presented these youngsters with medals. One of them was a North Dakotan. Twelve-year- old Waylon was on the farm with his brother and sister. His parents went to a neighbor farm for a moment to see the neighbors. It was winter, and in North Dakota in the winter, the stock pond was frozen. They were playing on the ice. This 12-year-old boy and his brother and sister were playing on the stock pond ice and his sister fell through the ice. It cracked and she fell through the ice and was drowning.

Waylon, age 12, sent his brother to go 1 mile to fetch his parents. His 6-year-old brother went off to fetch the parents. Waylon, age 12, meanwhile lay on his belly with his winter clothes on and cowboy boots toward the edge of the hole on the ice where his sister was drowning.

Some while later, about 20 minutes later, his parents came rushing into the yard, driving into the yard. What they saw was a 12-year-old boy in this area where the ice had broken who couldn't swim, who broke into that ice trying to find his sister who was drowning. What his parents saw was a young 12-year-old boy with his sister's head in the crook of his arm. He was treading water as fast as he could tread still 20 minutes later.

He was given a medal for heroism at the White House along with some other boys. I asked young Waylon: How did you do that? He said I watched ``GI Joe'' and I learned safety tips. He said: I kicked as hard as I could. He kicked so hard that his cowboy boots came off. On that day, a 12-year-old boy who couldn't swim reached out his hand for his sister who was drowning.

That same type of love, that kind of commitment, that outreach of a hand, not just from that 12-year-old boy, but from a country to farmers all across this country to say, let us help you when you are in trouble--that is the instinct of this country and why we created a safety net in the first place, to reach out our hands to say we want to help, you are not alone when prices collapse, when disease comes, when it hails, when it rains, when it rains too much, when it doesn't rain enough. This country has said we want to help because we believe family farmers are important to this country. We want people on Saturday night to come to the Bohemian Hall and swap stories about the weather, the crops, and their neighbors. We want that. The way you get that, it seems to me, is to preserve a safety net. We will not preserve a safety net for family farmers by deciding we ought to give millions and millions of dollars to the biggest agrifactories in this country that are farming the farm program.

When we give $1.3 billion in farm program payments to people who are not farming--let me say that again--when we send checks to the mailboxes of people who are not farming to the tune of $1.3 billion and call it a safety net in a farm program, I am saying it is a perversion of what we ought to do as a government to help family farmers in the future.

This ought not be a difficult choice. The committee made some improvements in this bill; yes, they did. But without this amendment, we will still have people who are not farming now and have never farmed in the past and will never farm in the future living on land that has not produced a crop for 20 years, and they are going to continue to get farm program payments. If you don't believe that is wrong, then vote against this amendment.

Senator Grassley and I believe there is a much better way. We don't do it by suggesting anybody at all should ever be penalized. We just believe we should use the resources we have to provide the best safety net we can to those family farms out there struggling to try to make ends meet during tough times. That is why we have a farm program. It is why we designed a safety net. It has not worked as well as any of us would have liked.

I would like to improve the safety net, but we can't improve the safety net if we are using this precious money to send it to Telegraph Hill in San Francisco to somebody who gets $2.4 million with her husband, a patron of the arts, who gets money from the farm program and whose brother now runs the farm and says: I don't know why we get this money, but if they get it down in Texas, we ought to get it here in San Francisco.

I am telling you, the American people expect more from us. Let me finish by saying this again. I deeply respect my colleagues who disagree with me. I respect my colleagues who have spoken in support of their bill and against this amendment. But I say to them, if they are for constructive change, if they are for reform that the American people understand makes sense, then they have to support this amendment and believe let's at least do the right thing.

This is a good bill that came out of the committee, but it needs to have this hole plugged. To have a bill come out of the committee and have loan deficiency payments or the marketing

loan be totally unlimited for the biggest farm in America for everything they ever will produce, that is wrong. It is a hole big enough to drive a truck through. If we can fix that, I say we have done a good day's work and done something very important for family farmers in the future.

One of my colleagues says, if we do this, he won't vote for the bill. I am going to vote for the bill one way or the other because this bill is an advancement in public policy. But Senator Grassley has said it well, my colleague Ben Nelson and others believe as I do that we should do this, we should have done this 6 years ago. And by the way, we had 66 Senators vote for this approach the last time we wrote a farm bill, and it got dropped in conference. My hope is we will at least have 60 votes tomorrow in support of change, constructive reform that the American people want. If you went to a cafe anyplace in this country, set this out and said: What do you think we should do? I tell you it will be 99 percent saying fix this, fix this, do this in support of the American taxpayers, and do this in support of family farmers.

Madam President, how much time do we have?

I yield myself 10 minutes.

Madam President, I came over to speak on an extremely important issue dealing with the public safety of employer-employee cooperation.

First, I listened with interest to our colleagues talk about the issues of malpractice and the costs to the health care system. The fact is we have had in the Judiciary Committee extensive hearings on this issue, and the root cause of the increases are not so much the problems with the doctors and the patients, it is the insurance industry in and of itself that has made poor investments. As a result of poor investments, they have raised the tariff on the various doctors and communities. This has been well documented. I wish to have material printed at the appropriate place in the Record about these issues. It is a serious issue--malpractice insurance--but it is important that we find out the real reasons for that. It does appear to me we are not getting the full story, certainly here on the floor of the Senate this afternoon.

Today's vote on the Gregg malpractice amendment is a test of the Senate's character. In the past, this body has had the courage to reject the simplistic and ineffective responses proposed by those who contend that the only way to help doctors is to further hurt seriously injured patients. Unfortunately, as we saw in previous debates on this issue, congressional Republicans are again advocating a policy which will benefit neither doctors nor patients, only insurance companies. Caps on compensatory damages and other extreme ``tort reforms'' are not only unfair to the victims of malpractice, they do not result in a reduction of malpractice insurance premiums.

We must not sacrifice the fundamental legal rights of seriously injured patients on the altar of insurance company profits. We must not surrender our most vulnerable citizens--women and newborn babies--to the avarice of these companies. The idea of denying pregnant women living in rural areas the same legal rights as pregnant women living in urban areas is truly absurd. It is a transparent gimmick designed to make this amendment appear relevant to a totally unrelated farm bill.

This bill contains most of the same unreasonable provisions which have been decisively rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Senate many times before. The only difference is that previous proposals took basic rights away from all patients, while this bill takes those rights away only from women and newborn babies who happen to live in rural communities. That change does not make the legislation more acceptable. On the contrary, it adds a new element of unfairness.

This legislation would deprive seriously injured patients of the right to recover fair compensation for their injuries by placing arbitrary caps on

compensation for non-economic loss in all obstetrical and gynecological cases involving women in rural areas. These caps will hurt patients who have suffered the most severe, life-altering injuries.

They are the children who suffered serious brain injuries at birth and will never be able to lead normal lives. They are the women who lost organs, reproductive capacity, and in some cases even years of life. These are life-altering conditions. It would be terribly wrong to take their rights away. The Republicans talk about deterring frivolous cases, but caps by their nature apply only to the most serious cases which have been proven in court. These badly injured patients are the last ones we should be depriving of fair compensation.

A person with a severe injury is not made whole merely by receiving reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages. Noneconomic damages compensate victims for the very real, though not easily quantifiable, loss in quality of life that results from a serious, permanent injury. It is absurd to suggest that $250,000 is fair compensation for a child who is severely brain injured at birth and, as a result, can never participate in the normal activities of day to day living; or for a woman who lost her reproductive capacity because of an OB/GYN's malpractice.

Caps are totally arbitrary. They do not adjust the amount of the compensation ceiling with either the seriousness of the injury, or with the length of years that the victim must endure the resulting disability. Someone with a less serious injury can be fully compensated without reaching the cap. However, a patient with severe, permanent injuries is prevented by the cap from receiving full compensation for their more serious injuries. The person with a life-altering injury may only be permitted to receive a relatively small portion of the compensation to which he or she is entitled.

The proponents argue that they are somehow doing these women and their babies a favor by depriving them of the right to fair compensation when they are seriously injured. It is an Alice in Wonderland argument which they are making. Under their proposal, a woman in a rural county whose gynecologist negligently failed to diagnose her cervical cancer until it had spread and become incurable would be denied the same legal rights as a man living in the same county whose doctor negligently failed to diagnose his prostate cancer until it was too late. Is that fair? By what convoluted logic would that woman be better off? Both the woman and the man were condemned to suffer a painful and premature death as a result of their doctors' malpractice, but her compensation would be severely limited while his would not. She would be denied the right to introduce the same evidence of medical negligence which he could. She would be denied the same freedom to select the lawyer of her choice which he had. She would be denied the right to have her case tried under the same judicial rules which he could. That hardly sounds like equal protection of the law to me. Yet that is what the advocates of this legislation are proposing.

Consider another real world example of how this bill would work. A woman visits her OB/GYN to be treated for infertility. She is given a medication which causes her to experience severe complications. A man goes to his doctor with an infertility problem. His doctor also prescribes medication, and he too experiences serious complications. Both suffer permanent injuries as a result, and each sues the pharmaceutical company which manufactured the two drugs. The woman's noneconomic compensation will be arbitrarily limited to $250,000 no matter how devastating her injuries and she will be unable to recover punitive damages even if the court determines that the drug company acted ``recklessly.'' In contrast, there will be no legal limitations on the compensation which the man is able to recover, and he can receive punitive damages if the drug company in his case is found to have acted ``recklessly''. How do the sponsors justify treating two patients with similar injuries so differently based solely on their gender?

Of course, this bill does not only take rights away from women. It takes them away from newborn babies who sustain devastating prenatal or delivery injuries as well. These children face a lifetime with severe mental and physical impairments all because of an obstetrician's malpractice or a defective drug or medical device. This legislation would limit the compensation they can receive for lost quality of life to $250,000--$250,000 for an entire lifetime. What could be more unjust?

This is not a better bill because it applies only to patients injured by obstetrical and gynecological malpractice. That just makes it even more arbitrary.

The entire premise of this bill is both false and offensive. Our Republican colleagues claim that women and their babies in rural areas must sacrifice their fundamental legal rights in order to preserve access to OB/GYN care. The very idea is outrageous. It is based on the false premise that the availability of OB/GYN physicians depends on the enactment of draconian tort reforms. If that were accurate, states that have already enacted damage caps would have a higher number of OB/GYNS providing care. However, there is in fact no correlation. States without caps actually have 28.2 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women, while states with caps have 27.9 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women. No difference.

And that is only one of many fallacies in this bill. If the issue is truly access to obstetric and gynecological care, why has this bill been written to shield from accountability HMOs that deny needed medical care to a woman suffering serious complications with her pregnancy, a pharmaceutical company that fails to warn of dangerous side effects caused by its new fertility drug, and a manufacturer that markets a contraceptive device which can seriously injure the user. Who are the authors of this legislation really trying to protect.

In reality, this legislation is designed to shield the entire health care industry from basic accountability for the care it provides to women and their infant children. It is a stalking horse for broader legislation which would shield them from accountability in all health care decisions involving all patients. While those across the aisle like to talk about doctors, the real beneficiaries will be insurance companies and large health care corporations. This legislation would enrich them at the expense of the most seriously injured patients; women and children whose entire lives have been devastated by medical neglect and corporate abuse.

In the last few years, the entire nation has been focused on the need for greater corporate accountability. This legislation does just the reverse. It would drastically limit the financial responsibility of the entire health care industry to compensate injured patients for the harm they have suffered. When will the Republican Party start worrying about injured patients and stop trying to shield big business from the consequences of its wrongdoing? Less accountability will never lead to better health care.

In addition to imposing caps, this legislation would place other major restrictions on seriously injured patients seeking to recover fair compensation. At every stage of the judicial process, it would change long-established judicial rules to disadvantage patients and shield defendants from the consequences of their actions.

(1) It would abolish joint and several liability for noneconomic damages. This means the most seriously injured people may never receive all of the compensation that the court has awarded to them. Under the amendment, health care providers whose misconduct contributed to the patient's injuries will be able to escape responsibility for paying full compensation to that patient. The patient's injuries would not have happened if not for the misconduct of both defendants, so each defendant should be responsible for making sure the victim is fully compensated.

(2) The bias in the legislation could not be clearer. It would preempt state laws that allow fair treatment for injured patients, but would allow state laws to be enacted which contained greater restrictions on patients' rights than the proposed Federal law. It is not about fairness or balance. It is about protecting defendants who provide negligent care.

(3) This bill places extreme restrictions on the right of injured patients to present expert testimony to help prove their cases. It establishes arbitrary requirements that would make it virtually impossible to qualify many of the most obviously accomplished medical experts as witnesses. Without the ability to present highly relevant expert testimony, the patient's right to her day in court will in many cases be a hollow one.

(4) The amendment preempts state statutes of limitation, cutting back the time allowed by many states for a patient to file suit against the health care provider who injured him. Under the legislation, the statute of limitations can expire before the injured patient even knows that it was malpractice which caused his or her injury.

(5) It mandates that providers and insurance companies be permitted to pay a judgment in installments rather than all at once. Delaying payment amounts to a significant reduction in the award. If the patient does not receive the money for years, he in reality is getting less money than the court concluded that he deserved for his injuries.

(6) It places severe limitations on when an injured patient can receive punitive damages, and how much punitive damages the victim can recover. This is far more restrictive than current law. It prohibits punitive damages for ``reckless'' and ``wanton'' misconduct, which the overwhelming majority of States allow.

(7) It imposes unprecedented limits on the amount of the contingent fee which a client and his or her attorney can agree to. This will make it more difficult for injured patients to retain the attorney of their choice in cases that involve complex legal issues. It can have the effect of denying them their day in court. Again the provision is one- sided, because it places no limit on how much the health care provider can spend defending the case.

If we were to arbitrarily restrict the rights of seriously injured patients as the sponsors of this legislation propose, what benefits would result? Certainly less accountability for health care providers will never improve the quality of health care. It will not even result in less costly care. The cost of medical malpractice premiums constitutes less than 1 percent of the Nation's health care expenditures each year. For example, in 2003, health care costs totaled $1.5 trillion, while the total cost of all medical malpractice insurance premiums was $8.2 billion. Malpractice premiums are not the cause of the high rate of medical inflation.

A study by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences determined that as many as 98,000 patients die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors. That is more than die from auto accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS each year. These disturbing statistics make clear that we need more accountability in the health care system, not less. In this era of managed care and cost controls, it is ludicrous to suggest that the major problem facing American health care is ``defensive medicine.'' The problem is not ``too much health care,'' it is ``too little'' quality health care.

Republicans in Congress and other supporters of caps have argued that restricting an injured patient's right to recover fair compensation will reduce malpractice premiums. But, there is scant evidence to support their claim. In fact, there is substantial evidence to refute it.

Caps are not only unfair to patients, they are also an ineffective way to control medical malpractice premiums. Enacting malpractice caps has not lowered insurance rates in the states that have them. There are other much more direct and effective ways to address the cost of medical malpractice insurance that do not hurt patients.

The claims regarding the recent malpractice reform in Texas has also been misleading. Prior to Proposition 12, 152 counties reported having no actively practicing OB/GYN doctors and 2 years after implementation, 152 counties still remain without doctors. In fact, it has not made care available to women residing in rural counties. Even more disturbing, the quality of care has diminished in urban areas and according to the Texas Medical Association, the physician organization of the state, the practice of ``defensive medicine'' has not diminished and is likely on the rise.

If a Federal cap on noneconomic compensatory damages for rural obstetrics and gynecological patients were to pass, it would sacrifice fair compensation for injured patients in a vain attempt to reduce medical malpractice premiums. Doctors will not get the relief they are seeking. Only the insurance companies, which created market instability, will benefit.

Doctors and patients are both victims of the insurance industry. Spikes in premiums have much more to do with the rate of return on insurance company investments than with what is actually taking place in operating rooms or in courtrooms. Excess profits from the boom years should be used to keep premiums stable when investment earnings drop. However, the insurance industry will never do that voluntarily. Only by recognizing the real problem can we begin to structure an effective solution that will bring an end to unreasonably high medical malpractice premiums.

I want to quote from the analysis of Weiss Ratings, Inc., a nationally recognized financial analyst conducted an in-depth examination of the impact of capping damages in medical malpractice cases. Their conclusions sharply contradict the assumptions on which this legislation is based. Weiss found that capping damages does reduce the amount of money that malpractice insurance companies pay out to injured patients. However, those savings are not passed on to doctors in lower premiums. Weiss is not speaking from the perspective of a trial lawyer or a patient advocate, but as a hard-nosed financial analyst that has studied the facts of malpractice insurance rating. Here is their recommendation based on those facts:

First, legislators must immediately put on hold all

proposals involving noneconomic damage caps until convincing

evidence can be produced to demonstrate a true benefit to

doctors in the form of reduced med mal costs. Right now,

consumers are being asked to sacrifice not only large damage

claims, but also critical leverage to help regulate the

medical profession--all with the stated goal that it will end

the med mal crisis for doctors. However, the data indicate

that, similar state legislation has merely produced the worst

of both worlds: The sacrifice by consumers plus a

continuing--and even worsening--crisis for doctors. Neither

party derived any benefit whatsoever from the caps.

Unlike the harsh and ineffective proposals in Senator Gregg's amendment, these are real solutions which will help physicians without further harming seriously injured patients. Doctors, especially those in high risk specialties, whose malpractice premiums have increased dramatically over the past few years do deserve premium relief. That relief will only come as the result of tougher regulation of the insurance industry. When insurance companies lose money on their investments, they should not be able to recover those losses from the doctors they insure. Unfortunately, that is what is happening now.

This amendment is not a serious attempt to address a significant problem being faced by physicians in some states. It is the product of party caucus rather than the bipartisan deliberation of a Senate committee. It was designed to score political points, not to achieve the bipartisan consensus which is needed to enact major legislation. For that reason, it does not deserve to be taken seriously by the Senate. It should be soundly rejected.

Public safety workers are on the front lines of our efforts to keep communities in America safe. They are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week doing back-breaking, difficult work. They never blink, they never falter. They do their duty and they do it well.

When the devastating fires raged in southern California, they battled the blazes. When the I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, they were the first on the scene. When the massive tragedy hit New York City on 9/11, their heroic work inspired the Nation and restored our spirit.

Just last week in Everett, MA, a tanker truck hauling 10,000 tons of fuel suddenly exploded on the highway. Forty cars caught fire.

It took more than 3 hours to put out the flames. But because the police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians responded so quickly, no one was killed in the accident. Words cannot begin to express our gratitude.

These heroic men and women have earned our thanks and respect, and

they have also earned the right to be treated with dignity. That is why it is a privilege to join with Senators Harkin and Gregg on this bipartisan public safety cooperation amendment to the farm bill, to guarantee that all firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, and other first responders have a voice at the table in the life-and-death discussions and decisions about their work. It will ensure that they are treated fairly. It will help them keep our communities safe. It is no wonder that this amendment has received such strong, bipartisan support. It passed the House of Representatives with 314 votes.

The amendment guarantees that every first responder will have the same basic right that most other workers in the public sector already enjoy--the right to collective bargaining. Many first responders already have this fundamental right.

Every New York City firefighter, emergency medical technician, and police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member under a collective bargaining agreement. So were the 7,000 firefighters who responded to the crisis in California. They were able to respond more efficiently and effectively to the crisis because they had a voice on the job. Many other first responders, however, are not so fortunate. Twenty-nine States and the District of Columbia guarantee all public safety workers the right to collective bargaining. But 21 States--this chart reflects it--still deny some or most or even all such workers this fundamental right. Their first responders don't have a voice in policies that affect their safety and livelihoods. That is both illogical and unfair.

We see all too often how dangerous these jobs can be. In 2005, 80,000 firefighters were injured in the line of duty; 76,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted or injured; and almost 300 of these public safety employees paid the ultimate price. First responders face chronic long-term health problems as well. The brave men and women who responded at Ground Zero now suffer from crippling health problems, such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

These men and women are profiles in courage. They walk into the fires, wade into floods, and put their lives on the line to protect our homes and families. They know what they need to have to be safe on the job. They deserve the right to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

The amendment grants these basic rights in a reasonable way that respects existing State laws. States that already grant collective bargaining to public safety workers are not affected by the bill. States that don't offer this protection can establish their own collective bargaining systems or ask the Federal Labor Relations Authority for help. That amendment sets a standard. Each State has full authority to decide how it will provide these basic rights.

These rights for first responders are not just important for the workers, they are key to the safety of our communities and our Nation. In the post-9/11 era, first responders have an indispensable role in homeland security. It is vital to our national interest that the essential services they provide are carried out as effectively as possible.

As study after study shows, cooperation between public safety employers and employees improves the quality of services and reduces fatalities. That is why strong, cooperative partnerships between first responders and the communities they serve are essential to public safety. As Dennis Compton, the fire chief of the city of Phoenix, has said:

When labor and management leaders work together to build

mutual trust, mutual respect, and a strong commitment to

service, it helps focus [a] fire department on what is truly

important . . . providing excellent service to the customers.

Our families, communities, and farms, deserve the best public safety services we can possibly provide. It starts with the strong foundation that collective bargaining makes possible.

We cannot call these brave men and women heroes in a time of crisis but turn our backs on them today. We need to act now to make these basic rights available to all of America's first responders. It is a matter of fundamental fairness, an urgent matter of public safety.

The best way to give our heroes the respect they deserve is by supporting this amendment. I urge them to do so.

How much time do I have remaining?

Madam President, let me go through some charts.

This chart is on California wildfires, farmland, crops, and livestock. This is Riverside County. I think all Americans remember these extraordinary fires that dominated the national news and newspapers and were so devastating to scores of families out West not many weeks ago. Riverside County lost $15 million in crop and farm products. The fire scorched over 900 acres of farmland. There was between $10 million and $15 million in damages to the avocado farms in Ventura County.

These men and women who fight these fires understand how to be effective and how to preserve both life and the farms in those communities. That is what this is all about--that they have a voice in the development of the policies, about how they are going to proceed. Nobody who watched and listened to those extraordinarily brave firefighters doubted the extraordinary competency and commitment these individuals have. They serve, and serve our country very well.

This is an indicator that firefighter fatalities are on the rise. All of us have seen the growth of fires. This is a rather awesome chart. Firefighter fatalities are on the rise. The red line indicates this. So we are asking more and more of them each year. This chart says that every year firefighters put their lives on the line to ensure our safety. In 2005, 80,000 firefighters suffered injuries and 115 died in the line of duty. This year, approximately 100 firefighters will pay the ultimate price while on duty.

Again, the point we are underlining here is that firefighters must have a voice in the development of policies, whether it is in the agriculture area or other areas. We need to give the first responders a voice in the development of safety measures and how to use equipment and use it effectively. You will have a more efficient kind of effort in terms of controlling fires, and it increases the safety and productivity of the firefighters.

These law enforcement officers are at risk on the job. In 2005--this legislation would apply to first responders here--76,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted or injured on the job and 157 died in the line of duty. Injuries and assaults have increased by 21 percent in the last 10 years. These jobs are becoming more hazardous. We have a responsibility to do everything we can to work with these first responders to help them do the job they can do and should do.

This chart shows that 9/11 firefighters enjoyed collective bargaining rights. I don't think any American who witnessed that extraordinary tragedy of 9/11 and witnessed those extraordinary men and women, those firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty on September 11-- they were union members with collective bargaining rights. They were prepared to do their jobs, and they did it like no others. They inspired a nation with their courage. Many are faced, as I mentioned, with many of the lung diseases, carpal tunnel syndrome, and bad backs. They need to be able to have those particular health care needs met and attended to.

Finally, the Cooperation Act protects the rights of dedicated public safety workers. This is a chart that tells what this legislation does and what it doesn't do.

First, it establishes the right to form a union and bargain over working conditions. It gives workers a voice in the working conditions, which is so important in terms of both the efficiency and effectiveness of their work. They would have the right to sign legally enforceable contracts and resolve stalled disputes through mediation or arbitration. There is a specific prohibition in terms of striking, but they can solve this through mediation. That is how disputes will be solved. It doesn't take away the authority of the State and local jurisdictions. It doesn't require any specific method to certify unions. It doesn't interfere with State right-to-work laws. It doesn't infringe on the rights of volunteer firefighters.

This is legislation which has been carefully considered and reviewed.

There are, at last count, more than 60 Members of our body, Republicans and Democrats, who have indicated support for the legislation. As we have seen and mentioned earlier, when we saw these devastating fires that went across the country and ravaged the farmland of this Nation and we saw the extraordinary work of so many first responders, it reminded us of our responsibility to make sure these extraordinary men and women who exhibited such extraordinary courage will be treated fairly and equitably. By doing so, they will be able to do their job and protect America's families and the farmland in our country more effectively.

Madam President, I withhold the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of a provision in the bill that the amendment before us is going to strike, the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network, which is included in the underlying bill of the Agriculture Committee.

This network is a critical service to help American families, particularly rural families. I oppose the amendment offered by the senior Senator from New Hampshire that would strike this measure.

Without a doubt, farmers and ranchers face unique challenges in providing food and fuel for this country. Farming is one of the most stressful and dangerous occupations in the United States. There are environmental, cultural, and economic factors that put farmers and ranchers at a higher risk for mental health problems.

Stress in agriculture contributes to rates of depression and suicide that are double the national average. This is true even in good times for farmers. As a farmer myself, this troubles me.

It also concerns me when rural residents, especially those involved in agriculture, are disproportionately represented among the uninsured of the United States. One-third of the agricultural population lacks health insurance coverage for behavioral health conditions. With the rising cost of health care and many farmers and ranchers in business on their own, the

cost of health care can be too much to handle.

We have a long way to go to make sure there is parity in our health care system. Those suffering from mental health problems do not always enjoy the same benefits of treatment because health coverage discriminates against illness of the mind.

On top of the risk and cost to farmers and ranchers, access to behavioral health care is more limited in rural areas. There are fewer professional providers, and there is a stigma on this type of care, especially among rural Americans. This is why the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network is needed. It is included in the farm bill because we need to provide better mental health care for people in rural areas.

I will be the first to admit that things are looking good for agriculture right now because prices, particularly of grain, are good. We are developing and strengthening our safety net for producers. The renewable energy progress that we have made has helped rural economies. But just because that is a reality today does not mean that it will continue forever.

Our farmers and ranchers will face challenges that are out of their control. They will face instances of terrible weather and disaster. They will see droughts and low prices. Good times do not last forever, and that is when our farmers and ranchers will need the support that this provision of the bill gives.

One of the most challenging factors that we farmers face is not being able to predict outcome. We are forced to take risk. We face severe consequences when we are wrong.

I remember the agriculture depression of the 1980s and what a toll it took on farmers in my State. I wondered if things would be different if the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network had existed prior to the beginning of that depression.

This network may support a crisis telephone hotline that farmers can access. Our rural residents and family farmers should have access to confidential and highly trained professionals during these tough times. The network could provide counseling services while working with extension offices to reach farmers.

Finally, the Senator sponsoring the amendment should be aware that this network is simply authorized in the underlying bill. We are not adding mandatory money for the program. We are simply providing authority to develop this network with dollars that may be appropriated later on.

So this amendment will not save money. Rather, what the amendment will do is do away with much needed support for those who work hard every day to put food on our plates, fiber for our clothing, and fuel for our economy.

So let's not eliminate this essential program without taking into account the bad years that could lie ahead. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I have yielded back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, what time do we have on Dorgan- Grassley?

I yield myself 14 minutes, as Senator Dorgan did.

Madam President, I think everybody in this body would agree we need to provide an adequate safety net for our family farmers, and I think I ought to be totally transparent with the taxpayers who might be listening, as well as my colleagues. I want you to know that I farm in a crop share--in Iowa, we call it a 50-50 arrangement--with my son. If we get farm payments, I get 50 percent of those payments. So I have received farm payments and presently do. That is assuming prices are low enough so you do receive those payments. Right now, they aren't that low.

We are talking about an adequate safety net. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increased scrutiny by urban communities and the press. The largest corporate farms are getting the majority of the benefits of the farm payment program, with 73 percent of the payments going to 10 percent of the farmers. With a situation such as that, we could lose urban support for the safety net for farmers.

Government payments were originally designed to benefit our small- and medium-sized farmers, but instead, now, as you can see, the vast majority of them are going to the smallest percentage of the farmers-- the biggest farmers. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices. Increased land prices and cash rents are driving family farmers and young farmers from the business of farming. I have mentioned this before in other debates. Land in Iowa generally, but I will use as an example land near my farm in New Hartford, IA, has skyrocketed and is selling anywhere between $4,000 and $6,000 an acre. In my home county, the value of an acre is up 64 percent since 2000.

Anybody listening might say, well, why is that bad for farming? Well, family farmers don't buy land one day and sell it the next. You buy it for the long haul. Sometimes farms have been in what we call century farms, for well over 100 years. So this doesn't put income in farmers' pockets. It does give them value. And if they were to die, I suppose their heirs would get a lot of money.

Across the State of Iowa, the average land value per acre rose 72 percent in the last 6 years. All these figures I am citing have something to do with the inability of young people to get started farming. When the average age of farmers is 58 in my State, we ought to start thinking about what we can do to make sure that young people, the next generation of farmers, can get started.

My State isn't the only one where this is occurring, an increase in land values. In a report published by two agricultural economists at Kansas State University, land values have increased 64 percent since 2002. This trend is occurring in many other States as well. The average of typical cash rents per acre in Iowa rose 25 percent in the same period of time. Because if you can't buy land, and you want to farm, you rent land. How are family farmers and young farmers going to survive with prices like this? How can they even get started?

This brings to mind a conversation I had within the last week with a young farmer near my home. He knows who gets these big payments in the State of Iowa, and he said, so-and-so--and I am not going to give the names out--just bought 600 acres of land. Why don't you guys do something about subsidizing these big farmers to get bigger? Now, this same young farmer would say to me, any farmer can get bigger all they want to. That is their business. That is entrepreneurship. But should we be subsidizing the biggest farmers to get bigger? He says, if you want to do something to get young people started--this young farmer said to me--put

a cap on what they are getting paid from the Federal Treasury. In other words, 10 percent of the biggest farmers getting 73 percent of the benefits out of the farm program is just plain bad policy.

I have been hearing directly from producers for years what former Secretary Johanns heard in his farm bill forums held across the 50 States. Young farmers can't carry on the tradition of farming because they are financially unable to do so because of high land values and cash rents. If that was the market, okay. But if it is being influenced by subsidies for big farmers to get bigger, they would say it is wrong. They would also say it is wrong when you have 1030 exchanges, when it is cash free, as having something to drive up the value of land as well.

Professor Terry Kastens, of Kansas State University, came out with a report on this subject. The report states that since the 1930s, government farm program payments have bolstered land values above what they otherwise would have been. Dr. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University emeritus professor, worked with Professor Kastens on this subject, and he determined that:

The evidence is convincing that a significant portion of

the subsidies are being bid into cash rents and capitalized

into land values. If investors were to expect less Federal

funding--or none at all--land values would likely decline,

perhaps as much as 25 percent.

That would give young farmers better opportunities to buy or cash rent for less in order to get started farming. And that is necessary, because the average age of farmers in the Midwest is about 58 years.

The law creates a system that is clearly out of balance. If we look at the results posted here, it emphasizes what I have already said: Ten percent of the farmers get 73 percent of the benefits out of the farm program, and the top 1 percent gets 30 percent.

Senator Dorgan and I have offered this payment limits amendment which I believe will help revitalize the farm economy for young people across this country. This amendment will put a hard cap on farm payments at $250,000. For a lot of farmers in my State, they say: Grassley, that is ridiculously high. But we have to look at the whole country, so this is a compromise.

No less important, we tighten up the meaning of the term ``actively engaged,'' a legal term in the farming business. What that means is that people have to be farming, because if we are providing a safety net to someone in farming, I think they should be required to actually be in the business of farming, sharing risks and putting their money into the operation.

I wish to make a very clear distinction here. Some Members of the Senate have advocated that the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is not as tough as what is in the Senate Agriculture Committee bill or some say it might be too tough. I want to say why this is not true, and I have a chart here to bring this to your attention. We have to compare apples to apples. That is what my chart does. Saying that the committee has a hard cap on payment limits of $200,000 is not accurate. They only have a hard cap on direct payments and counter cyclical payments. Let me remind my colleagues, we have direct payments, we have loan deficiency payments, and we have countercyclical payments. Out of those three, the bill before us that we are amending has a hard cap on direct payments and countercyclical payments, not on loan deficiency payments. The Dorgan-Grassley amendment actually caps direct payments and countercyclicals at $100,000.

In addition, the amendment will cap marketing loan gains at $150,000. While the committee--this is the loophole, this is the weakness of the argument that this bill tightens things up--it leaves loan deficiency payments unlimited. This actually weakens current law. So while the committee took some correct steps by closing the loopholes I have advocated against by including the ``three entity rule'' and by including direct attribution, it also takes a step in the wrong direction by making payments virtually unlimited. This whole debate is about good policy. Fixing one problem but leaving other doors open does not do any good.

I also wish to make a clarification for some of my colleagues. I have gotten quite a few questions about how the payment cap will actually work. We set nominal limits at $20,000, $30,000, and $75,000 respectively, then we allow folks to double. So a single farmer who would get $20,000 in direct payments can actually double to $40,000. We set it at $20,000, so if they want to attribute the payments to a husband and wife separately, they can. So a husband can have $20,000 attributed to him and $20,000 to the wife, for a total of $40,000, just like a single farmer. One more clarification: If a farmer is working with his two sons, each would be eligible for the $40,000 individually.

I wish to address some of the falsities my colleagues have raised since the payment limit debate. They have argued that this is not reform because it targets crops but not the Milk Income Loss Contract Program or conservation. To say that we do not have payment limits on these two programs is hogwash. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program has probably the strongest payment limits of any program. What came out of the Agriculture Committee includes caps on programs such as EQIP, the Conservation Reserve Program, and Conservation Security Program. Whether those caps are at appropriate levels is something that can legitimately be debated but should not detract from what we are doing on commodities through Dorgan-Grassley.

Now, our amendment produces some considerable savings. We think there is money needed in some programs that are not adequately funded to help small businesspeople, conservationists, and low-income people through commodity programs. We support beginning farmer and rancher programs and the rural microenterprise program. We also provide funds for organic cost share programs and the Farmers Market Promotion Program.

A large priority of mine has always been seeing justice is done for the Black farmer discrimination case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This will double the amount provided by the committee for late filers under the Pigford consent decree who have not gotten a chance to have their claims heard. It is time to make these farmers right who were discriminated against.

We support the Grassland Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and finally, while the Agriculture Committee makes significant contributions to the nutrition and food assistance programs, they were not able to go far enough in light of the tight budget constraints. So Dorgan-Grassley adds money in those areas.

The 2002 bill has cost less than expected. But this was not because of the payment limit reform in 2002. In actuality, we increased the nominal payment cap, and it continued the generic certificate loophole. Instead, what has happened is that we have had some good years in agriculture and prices have been high. That is why it cost us less to have a safety net over the last 5 or 6 years, not because reforms were put in, in 2002. I worked with Senator Dorgan on a similar measure in 2002, and it passed with bipartisan support, 66 to 31. Unfortunately, it was stripped out in conference. I voted against the farm bill because of that.

Let me remind this body that the Senate Agriculture Committee, out of conference, set up a commission called the Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture. That is this report right here. They did this during conference as a sop to Dorgan and me.

Is my 14 minutes up? I ask for 2 more minutes.

This Commission was set up as a sop to Dorgan and myself. We didn't get what we wanted, and consequently, you know, let's have a commission study it.

The Commission ended up, in this report, recommending the very measures which we have included in this bill. So they want a study? The study says what we said in 2002 that the conferees didn't think we ought to do. And we have had all the eggheads and farmers in this country study the problem we presented in 2002, and they gave us the results we have here.

The report said also that the 2007 farm bill is the time for these reforms. You might remember the last time we had a vote on payment limits was in a budget bill a couple of years ago. Many

of our colleagues said they agreed with what we were trying to do, but they said the budget was not the right time; it needs to be done on the farm bill. To all of our colleagues who said: Wait for the farm bill, we are waiting. You have your opportunity. It is 2007. We have the farm bill here.

By voting in favor of this amendment, we can allow young people to get into farming and lessen the dependence on Federal subsidies. This will help restore public respectability for the Federal farm program and keep urban support for the farm program so we can continue to have a stable supply of food for our consumers.

I call upon my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the remainder of time for our side.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself a few minutes.

Mr. President, I will do it for the sole purpose of commenting on a couple things the Senator from Arkansas brought up. One was the statement where if our amendment is adopted, Senator Dorgan and I would be working to eliminate farm program payments altogether. I wish to make clear I am a believer in a safety net for farmers. We are going to maintain that safety net. So I hope people will ignore that suggested goal.

I think it is important to understand that farm programs have been around since the 1930s. They have been around

as a safety net because farmers are at the beginning of the food chain or, you might say, at the bottom of the food chain. We have a situation where farmers for input, for producing a crop--producing the food our consumers eat--pay what is charged for those imports. They might bargain a little bit, but they don't have control; they have to buy the imports or they aren't in farming. When they sell their products, they have to sell what the market bears for the day they choose to sell. They might choose a different day to sell, but eventually, whatever they sell for is what the market is there; a farmer is not bargaining for that market. So smaller farmers don't have the ability to withstand things beyond their control, such as a natural disaster or domestic policy such as, let's say, Nixon freezing beef prices, ruining the beef farmers, or stopping the exports of soybeans so that they fall from $13 a bushel to $3 a bushel. Those are things a farmer doesn't have anything to do with. So we have a safety net to help medium- and small- sized farmers get over humps and things they don't control, whereas larger farmers, the farmers whom we are putting a $250,000 cap on--the larger the farmer, the more staying power they have. Now, I admit they are affected by the same policies I have referred to, but they have the ability to withstand that to a greater extent than smaller farmers. Also, as I stated in my opening remarks, when you subsidize big farmers, it helps them to get bigger, and it makes it more difficult for people to stay in farming.

A second thing I wish to give a retort to is the use of quotes from an article that says the largest farms in America produce 78 percent of the commodities, but only get 56 percent of the farm program payments. Well, the safety net wasn't set up to match the food source. It wasn't developed to follow the crowd. It was set up to protect small- and medium-sized farmers from things beyond their control, and to maintain the institution of the family farm because it is the most efficient food-producing unit in the entire world. I would compare it to corporate farms on the one hand; I would compare it to the political State farms of the old Soviet Union as an example. The family farm has a record of being the most productive. That is to the benefit of the farmer and the entire economy. It is to the benefit of the consumer.

I am not advocating that there is anything wrong with large farms or large farms expanding; we just shouldn't subsidize them to do it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time is left on our side?

I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam President, one of the things I think we have to remember is there is reform in the bill that the committee has presented to the Senate--reform that probably should have been done a long time ago.

I pointed it out in my opening remarks and in closing I want to kind of emphasize that there are limits put on in the bill that sound very reasonable. But I have to tell you there is one gigantic loophole you have to consider, and out of the three forms of payments--direct payment, loan deficiency payment, and countercyclical payment--the caps that are in the bill, adding up to $200,000, are for countercyclical and direct payments.

So if you don't have a cap on loan deficiency payments, that means the payments farmers can receive are unlimited and, from that standpoint, when loan deficiency payments are considered, there is not a hard cap. Now, the adjective, ``hard,'' is applicable to Dorgan- Grassley, and it is very important because we have had caps on farm programs for, I will bet, three or four decades. They have been ineffective caps because there has been legal subterfuge to get around it.

The underlying bill, as well as our amendment, takes care of some of that legal subterfuge. But we maintain one for loan deficiency payments within this bill. So you, consequently, don't have a hard cap. Some people would say you don't have a cap at all. I will not go that far. But it is one gigantic opportunity for people to get payments that are really not limited. And it is particularly important for big farmers because the loan deficiency payment is paid out so much per bushel for what the market price is under the target price. So the more bushels you produce, the larger the farm, the more deficiency payments you are going to get. Consequently, we are trying to stop subsidizing farmers from getting bigger.

But when the loan deficiency payment is left out, you are going to give these farmers the same opportunity they have under existing law to use a legal subterfuge that basically makes the limits less meaningful. So I hope you will consider whether you think, when we have a cap, it ought to be an effective cap and, in the words of Dorgan-Grassley, a hard cap. It is very important that we do that.

Remember the background for the farm safety net. It is to help medium- and small-sized farmers, to protect them against things beyond their own control. And natural disaster is a natural one to speak about because floods and hail and windstorms and inability because of a wet spring to get the crop in, et cetera, et cetera, are all natural disasters that a farmer cannot do anything about. Only God can do something about natural disasters.

Then there are political decisions. I keep mentioning them because they ruined so many farmers in the 1970s. Nixon put a freeze on beef prices, and the President also put a limit on exports of soybeans so the price would plummet when it was very high in the early 1970s. And there is international politics: the cost of energy, what OPEC does-- all of that is beyond the control of the small- and medium-sized farmers.

But the larger you get, the more staying power you have in it, and we don't need to have a safety net so strong that it subsidizes big farmers to get bigger, and 10 percent of the biggest farmers are getting 73 percent of the benefits out of the farm program.

I yield the floor.

I have up to 30 minutes to describe these two amendments, and then other Senators have time, I assume, to oppose the amendments. What I will do is--

Yes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Colorado and Vermont.

I say to the Senator from Iowa, what I will do is I will use a few minutes, maybe 5 or 10, summarizing the two amendments I have offered which I talked some about yesterday. Then I will yield the floor and sit down and allow the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Vermont to use their 10 minutes each. Then Senator Harkin may want to use his 10 minutes. Then I will come back at the end. I probably will not use all of my time.

Mr. President, I offer two amendments. They are at the desk. The first one has to do with land grant university research funding, to try to get back on track a terrific program the Congress passed in 1998 to properly fund value-added research for our land grant universities across this country. That is No. 1.

No. 2 is to amend the amendment of the Senator from Colorado, which is a part of the bill, so that we would limit 100 kilowatt wind towers to farm areas and not residential areas. Those are the two amendments.

I wish to begin by summarizing the land grant university research amendment. What amendment 3551 does is it adds $74 million over the last 3 years of the farm bill for agricultural research at land grant colleges.

In my opinion, having been president of a land grant university, the University of Tennessee, I believe our land grant colleges and universities are our secret weapon in value-added products; in other words, taking soybeans and turning them into milk and creating higher incomes for farmers and more jobs in the United States.

Let me take an example, one which I used yesterday. Those who live in the Southwest, which I do not, are apparently very familiar with the guayule plant. I might call it a weed. That might not be a friendly designation, but it looks like a weed to me. The University of Arizona discovered--one of our land grant universities, as a part of the program I am seeking to get back on track--that it could use this plant to develop nonallergic latex to go into rubber gloves. Why is that important? Because according to OSHA, allergic reactions from latex rubber affect 10 percent of the Nation's health care workforce. So we have not only helped health care through the land grant universities, we have helped create incomes in the Southwest where this is grown. We have helped grow jobs in the United States as well.

There are examples of that all through our country. That is why the Congress, in 1998, created a program which is called the Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program. That very simply did, through the Department of Agriculture, which we do through many other parts of government, grants of research offered to land grant universities in a competitive way, not just doled out, not just pork, in a competitive way to try to help them create value-added products.

The program has worked for a couple of years since 1998. It didn't work so well in other years. I summarized that yesterday. The bottom line is, both appropriators and authorizers during this time got away from the idea of competitive, peer-reviewed grants and began to earmark and designate their favorite universities for some of the money. Then on another occasion in 2005, the Congress, looking for a way to bring the budget under control, saw this as a pot of money that could be used and took the money from agricultural research and used it to do a better job of balancing the budget.

There was a 2-year period, in 2001 and 2002, when under this program there were 183 grants to 71 of the 76 land grant universities, one in every State. Out of that came this research and a variety of other products.

The purpose of this amendment is to get this program back on track. It was first authorized in 1998, had a couple of problems, but here is what my amendment would do. My amendment would add $74 million in the last 3 years of the farm bill. The House, in its version of the farm bill, has added $600 million in those 3 years. So the conferees could look at those two amounts of money and come to a reasonable adjustment and get the program back on track, competitively awarded grants for land grant colleges and universities, our secret weapon in raising farm incomes.

How do we pay for it? The $47 million in funding over the last 3 years of the farm bill is fully offset by striking section 302 from the tax title. I described that yesterday. I will be glad to describe it again, if I need to. But it is fully funded.

Let me go to my second amendment, No. 3553. It affects the so-called small wind tax credit. The small wind tax credit in the bill allows up to $4,000 for someone to put a 100-kilowatt wind turbine in either a farm or rural area or residential area. Since this is a farm bill and not a residential bill, what my amendment would do is limit the ability of this subsidy to go to wind turbines to farms and rural businesses as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. If I could put it in plain English: It will be very difficult for Members of the Senate to go home and explain to their neighbors, whether they are in Tennessee or Colorado or Mississippi, why they passed a law saying we are going to take some of your tax money and give it to your neighbor so he or she can put up a 12-story tower in his or her front yard next to you. I don't think that is an appropriate use of our tax money. I don't believe it is a wise way to create electricity. It doesn't show the kind of common sense we need to show in creating clean energy.

The example I used yesterday, and which I could go into more detail later, is the $5 million tax credit in this bill

for these kinds of towers would create only about 12 megawatts of electricity. That is a pretty puny amount of electricity. Common sense suggests it would be much wiser to use the $5 million to buy $2 energy- efficient light bulbs and give them to people in residential areas. That would save 8 times as much energy as these turbines would produce.

There are other reasons the turbines are not necessary. One is that the wind industry is heavily subsidized already. For example, wind energy will receive $11.5 billion over the next 10 years from the production tax credit. By fiscal year 2009, the Federal tax subsidy for wind energy will be the largest subsidy for energy which is an astonishing figure when you take into account that wind provides less than 1 percent of the electricity we use. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the year 2020, it will provide not much more than that. Here we have billions and billions already going to subsidize wind power. That amount is half as much as all of the subsidies for oil and gas, and it is totally disproportionate to the value of the energy we get.

I stand as a Senator who is very concerned about clean air and climate change. Since I arrived in 2003, I have had in place--first with Senator Carper, then with Senator Lieberman--a climate change/ clean air bill that would put caps on utilities which produce one-third of the carbon in the United States. That bill also included stricter standards than now exist in law on mercury, on sulfur, and on nitrogen. I was the sponsor in the last Congress of the solar tax credit which I believe is important. In the hearing the other day we had on climate change, I proposed and the committee adopted, a low-carbon fuel standard. I voted for, and hope to be able to vote for again in final passage of the Energy bill, the fuel efficiency standards which were in the Senate-passed Energy bill.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has testified that is the single most important thing we can do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But I believe we should use common sense. I don't believe using tax dollars to give your neighbor up to $4,000 so he or she can create up to a 12-story tower in a residential neighborhood makes much common sense. My appeal is as much to common sense as anything else.

My hope is the Senate would agree that it will be fine if we want to subsidize the building of even such large wind turbines in rural areas, but it is not all right to subsidize the building of those wind turbines in residential areas. My amendment would also make clear that nothing we did in this bill overrode local zoning ordinances that people use to decide what sort of towers they want to permit.

That concludes my remarks. I will listen to my colleagues from Vermont and Colorado.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I will take just a few of those, unless the Senator from Iowa wishes to speak now.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Colorado, and I know the Senator from Vermont as well has strong and deeply held views on this subject. So do I. I would only respond in these ways: I don't think it is necessary to destroy the environment in order to save the environment. I think there are more sensible ways to save the environment than to use tax dollars to encourage people to put up 12- story white towers of red lights in their own neighborhoods.

There is some talk about Congress interfering with land use. Well, what happens here is that when the Congress gives out tax money--my tax money, your tax money--and says you can use it for this purpose, people do it. So the Congress is distorting land use decisions, in effect. So it is the other side that is interfering with local land use decisions.

Maybe we have different conceptions of what the word ``small'' means. A 100-kilowatt tower is--can be 12 stories high. So we are not talking about your grandmother's windmill that snuggles up cozily next to the barn; we are talking about your neighbor in New Jersey or Tennessee or Vermont who comes in and says: Hey, I have a great idea. I am going to put up a 12-story tower in my front yard with your tax money. Now, if that person wants to do that and local ordinances permit that, then that is not the business of the Federal Government. We don't need to be encouraging it in residential areas. All I am saying is this is a farm bill, and what I am trying to say is we should limit these subsidies to rural areas.

The Senator from Colorado said this would be a crippling blow to the wind effort. I believe that suggestion, if I may respectfully say, is overblown. The biggest--through the renewable electricity production tax credit alone, the U.S. taxpayer will spend $11.5 billion on wind energy over 10 years, between 2007 and 2016. This doesn't begin to count other Federal, State, or local subsidies for wind. So without this subsidy, we are spending $11.5 billion for wind.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, by the year 2009 this wind subsidy and the production tax credit that is already in the law will be the single largest Federal tax expenditure for energy in the United States. Yet it only produces seven-tenths of 1 percent of the electricity we use. To put it in a little perspective--and I mentioned this yesterday--according to the same Joint Tax Committee, all the subsidies we give to oil and gas through taxes, according to the Joint Tax Committee, are $2.7 billion in the year 2009. The wind subsidies are $1.3 billion. Well, we use oil and gas. We use about 25 percent of all of the oil and gas in the world in this great big economy of ours. We don't use much of it to make electricity, but we have a $2.7 billion taxpayer investment in that, and that is debated here. But nobody seems to notice that we are spending $1.3 billion--nearly half as much--on these large wind turbines, and they are not producing much power--not much power at all.

Just so everyone understands, half of our electricity is produced by coal. Eighty percent of our carbon-free electricity is produced by nuclear power. I didn't hear my friends on the other side say a word about nuclear power.

Climate change is an inconvenient truth, Al Gore said. I am not one of those who believe that just because Al Gore said it means it is wrong. I believe climate change is a very serious problem for our country and our world. I am working hard to change that through low carbon fuel standards, through putting caps on utilities, and through sponsoring solar energy. But why would we make such an extraordinarily disproportionate investment in wind turbines when they produce so little energy and, according to the Energy Administration, are likely to produce so little?

So the only other points I would make are these: The Senator from Vermont mentioned the relentless melting of the Arctic. We agree. We need to deal with climate change. But I would suggest that conservation and nuclear power are the way to deal with climate change in this generation. That may be an inconvenient truth as well, but that is the way to do it.

As I mentioned earlier, just spending the $5 million that is allocated for these big residential wind turbines and farm wind turbines, just spending that on efficiency lightbulbs would save eight times as much energy. That would make more common sense to me.

The Senator from Vermont also pointed out that the UK--the United Kingdom--might power all of its houses with wind power. I read that article too; I believe it is the same article. But they are planning to do that with large wind turbines way out in the ocean where you won't be able to see them very easily. If they do have all of their power from wind power, I don't think I would want to live there because my computer and my lights and my air-conditioner and my heater would only work when the wind blows. Wind can't be stored in any effective way today, so it only works when the wind blows. It is not possible for it to be used as a base power of electricity. It is not a good peaking power.

So what we are doing with these extraordinary subsidies for wind is we are encouraging people to build large wind turbines in areas where the wind doesn't blow just so they can make some money on it because of all of these huge generous subsidies, and we are deluding ourselves into thinking we are dealing with climate change when, in fact, we are ignoring the real solutions to climate change, which are conservation, No. 1, and--in this generation, at least--nuclear power, No. 2.

So that is my reason for making this amendment. This is a farm bill. If we are going to subsidize wind turbines in the farm bill, let's do it on farms. Let's not take my tax money and your tax money and give it to your neighbor and say: You can put up a 12-story white tower next door, and we would like to encourage you to do that in your residential neighborhood. I don't think that makes common sense. Once it starts happening, neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood, I think a lot of taxpayers are going to be calling their U.S. Senator and saying: You did what? You did what? Why didn't you vote for conservation support? Why didn't you vote to have clean coal technology? Why didn't you vote to build more nuclear powerplants, which are the real way to do carbon-free energy? Why are you pretending to solve climate change by putting up 12-story towers or encouraging them to be put up in my neighbor's front yard?

So I hope my colleagues will recognize that the wiser vote today is for the Alexander amendment because that will make possible new subsidies, in addition to all of the other subsidies, for wind turbines in rural areas. They call them small, but they are up to 12 stories tall. It will make it clear that there is no interference with local land use rules about what kind of towers may go up and down.

Of course, the other amendment I proposed would help get the research programs back on track at our land grant universities which have been so valuable in helping raise farm incomes and creating jobs in this country.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks, if that would be all right.

Mr. President, just a few remarks.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator, who is chairman of the Energy Committee, and I appreciate his support for nuclear power, which is 80 percent of our carbon-free electricity in America even though it is only 20 percent of our electricity.

I will discuss briefly his point on my amendment that would seek to restore funding to the program for land grant universities. If the managers are able to find some extra money, that would be terrific, but it ought to be in addition to the $74 million I have proposed. The House proposes to spend $600 million over the last 3 years in the farm bill. I am proposing to spend $74 million.

Second, one of the problems with the section I am seeking to strike is that it appears to apply retroactively to transmission towers. I see no reason for that. A larger problem is that wind doesn't need more subsidies. The Senator talked about subsidies to other forms of energy for research and development. I have yet to hear anybody contradict the fact that the taxpayer, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will spend $11.5 billion on wind energy over the next 10 years, which today produces less than 1 percent of our electricity, and only when the winds blows.

Even if you have wind turbines all over America, you still need nuclear plants, conservation, coal plants, and a base load of electricity. There is a long list of Federal subsidies for wind energy and, in addition, clean, renewable energy bonds, the Department of Defense energy incentive program, et cetera, including State programs. What is happening is that we are encouraging people to build wind turbines, as they have on Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, in places where the wind doesn't blow, just to make the money the Federal Government provides in subsidies.

Finally, I think the greatest, most specific argument against the idea of giving tax breaks to landowners, where you are going to build new transmission lines, is this: This would mean the Tennessee taxpayer would be taxed to pay for transmission lines in New Mexico or South Dakota, or the Georgia taxpayer would be taxed to pay for transmission lines in Pennsylvania or Virginia. Transmission lines should be paid for by the utility that builds them and the ratepayer who benefits from that, not by the general taxpayers. So if all of the other reasons go to the side, the major reason in support of this amendment is that it is inappropriate for us to require taxpayers in Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas to pay for utilities' transmission lines in New Mexico, South Dakota, and Illinois. They should pay for them themselves.

Mr. President, that concludes my remarks.

We yield back our time.

Madam President, I ask the manager of the bill if he wishes us to begin our 1-minute discussion?

Madam President, this is a wonderful opportunity to take wasteful Washington spending and turn it into higher farm family income by using our secret weapon, land grant universities' competitive grants to create value-added agricultural products to get that program back on track. It is fully paid for, $74 million, by striking a provision that uses taxpayers' dollars so taxpayers in Virginia and Georgia, for example, will pay for transmission lines in Tennessee and other States. Those should be paid for by utilities.

The group that hopes Senators vote ``yes'' includes the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, the words I would like my colleagues to remember are ``farms, yes; residential, no.'' If the Alexander amendment is adopted, there would be subsidies for wind turbines up to 12 stories tall in agricultural areas, but there would be no subsidies for wind turbines in residential areas. This is called ``small wind.'' Twelve stories is not very tall, but I would not want to go home and explain to my constituents why I took their tax dollars and helped a neighbor build a 12-story-tall wind turbine with flashing lights in a residential neighborhood.

Farms, yes; residential, no. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the Dorgan-Grassley amendment before us. But before I explain why, I do want to say I have tremendous respect for my colleagues from North Dakota and Iowa. They are hard-working men who are interested in working hard to get things done. I very much appreciate that. I hope they can see the success they have already had from the hard work they have put in since 2001 and what has come to fruition--the underlying bill that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

We worked very hard on that bill in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We came out with a very balanced bill. It is a bill that, frankly, has more reform, more substantive reform than any farm bill we have ever done. I hope those two Senators--as I said, I have tremendous respect for them and the hard work they bring to this body--I hope they do recognize the success they have had since 2001 in moving forward in reform.

I also come to the floor here to oppose this amendment because, unfortunately, it is going to probably have some very dire unintended consequences from the remaining part of this amendment that is not included in the underlying bill.

I just have to answer a couple of the questions my colleagues have brought forward.

The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, mentioned land values. I have approached almost every Member in this body to discuss the farm bill. It is critically important to a small rural agricultural State such as the one I represent, Arkansas. Agriculture is the basis of our economy. In my discussions with Senator Grassley, he mentioned his concern about land values. I went back to do my research, and I found a study done by Iowa State University that gives us six reasons why those land values are out of whack, and not one of those top six reasons is farm payments. So I have a little concern in terms of blaming land values on farm payments. There are multiple things there that we can see that would cause concern.

I also would like to touch on a few of the realities for the hard- working men and women who produce our food in this country, to respond to some of the other criticisms I have heard and dispel a few of those misrepresentations of farming that are out there.

The most often used--and it was used by my colleague here today--the most used misrepresentation I encounter is the argument that a disproportionate share of farm payments go to the top 10 percent of farms in terms of size. I have heard it reported at 75 percent of the payment, 80 percent--sometimes they even use the number 90 percent. Honestly, it seems to change depending on the day or the source, and that is why I thought I would bring a few charts of my own to clarify the issue and set the record straight.

My first chart includes excerpts from a speech by the famed agricultural economist from Kansas State University, Barry Flinchbaug. Here is what he has to say about the distribution of farm payments according to farm size: These programs are designed for the medium-size farmers. They have done what they were supposed to do. We have 2.1 million farms. Small farms make up 84 percent of that, ``small'' being defined as gross sales of less than $100,000. They produce 21 percent of the food supply, but they receive 30\1/2\ percent of the payments. Medium-sized farmers, on the other hand, make up 12.2 percent of the farms, and they produce 28 percent of the domestically grown food supply, and they receive 42.7 percent of the payments. Big farms with sales of more than $500,000 make up more than 3.8 percent of the farmers. They produce half of the food supply, and they receive 27 percent of the payments.

I think if we just look at this we will realize those that are producing 78 percent of the commodities are only getting 58 percent of the payments.

My second chart brings this point home a little bit more and certainly in living Technicolor. As you can see, my source here is the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. We are pleased to bring this. I know the pie chart Senator Grassley used probably uses the definition of a farmer which even Senator Lugar earlier--I think today or even yesterday, perhaps--agreed is completely out of whack. If we are going to include an FHA student who earns $1,000 or more selling a calf as a farmer, then we have a problem in terms of the definition of a farmer. Unfortunately, that puts us out of whack in some of the statistical dealings that we have to get a good, clear picture of what we are up against.

I am going to go into some details on this chart, but I will first point out that the chart shows farmers today receive a portion of farm bill benefits that closely matches their percentage of total production. As you can see here by the red line, which indicates the percentage of Government payment, and the green line, which represents the percentage of production, they are almost identical in many ways. In fact, you will see the only discrepancy that exists is that the farmer who produces 78 percent of the products, combining the nonfamily farmers and the large family farms, receives only 58 percent of the total farm program.

Now, remember, those are family farmers who are producing not just food source but a safe and abundant and affordable food supply and fiber, not to mention the fact that they are doing it in an environmentally responsible way, respectful to all of the different regulations that we impose. Other countries do not do that.

I will be the first to say I think that is a good deal. I think in this country, to be able to be reassured that we are going to get a safe food supply, that it is going to be done with respect to the environment, that it is going to be done with respect to water and water resources and clean water and clean air, all of those things, that is very reasonable. It is a good investment. It is a good return on that dollar.

When you see, in that blue line--and that represents the percentage of farmers in a certain category, the percentage of farmers that accounts for the 78 percent of that production in this country, who are, in fact, that mythical and demonized 10 percent of the farmers our critics like to refer to.

So if 10 percent are producing 78 percent of the food source that we take for granted so often, then why should we not want our program to follow the crops? As you can clearly see, 10 percent receive only 58 percent of the total farm program payment. I think all of these numbers and certainly the charts make this point very well.

The bottom line is, the payments follow production. That is what we want to see. We want to see an efficiency in that what we are striving to do--and that is to provide a domestically produced, safe, abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber--is done.

That is what the insurance of our farm program is there for. And this reflects the fact that is exactly what those dollars are doing. They are a good investment, and they are returning on that investment to the American people.

Now, the other issue that was brought up in terms of my colleagues about the marketing loan cap, I am still a little bit confused on what the Dorgan-Grassley proposal does in terms of doubling those payments. I am not sure if that means they are capped at $250,000 or if it is at $500,000 if your wife or spouse is considered actively engaged in farming. But I think many of us have asked those questions, and we are still a little bit confused.

But when we talk about the cap, I would simply remind my colleagues, the current law marketing loan is uncapped. The President's proposal is uncapped. And the reason is, because we understand that in some of our crops they cannot use the disaster assistance, which we have plussed up about $5 billion, the crop insurance program is not as detailed to their needs and concerns because, quite frankly, it is hard to find a reasonable crop insurance plan that will, at a reasonable cost, protect you against the kind of risks that you have.

So that marketing loan is key. It is key because it allows them to remain competitive. So when they hit those troubled shoals they can use that marketing loan to buy themselves time in the marketplace to be able to market their crops.

We have found in years past that when we tried to cap the marketing loan, what happens is particularly farmers in my area who do have difficult times with crop insurance and have a very difficult time being able to access disaster assistance end up forfeiting their crops. So it goes to Government forfeiture and then the Government gets left holding the bag. The taxpayer gets left holding the bag. That is not what we want to see happen. We want these farmers to use the market, and we want to provide them the kind of tools that allow them to use the market, and that is what the marketing loan does, particularly for growers of southern commodities.

So it is not capped in underlying or existing law. It is not capped in the President's proposal. I think that is because people realize that Government forfeiture of those crops is unreasonable.

I feel as if I have come down here and spoken so many times. I have addressed the issue, particularly, of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment and the overall farm bill numerous times recently because I believe so strongly that the reforms already incorporated in the underlying bill are more significant than any reform effort that we have ever undertaken in farm policy.

We have made huge strides. I think both of these gentlemen will recognize that. They certainly have to me in some circumstances. But as a consequence of enacting the provisions of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, it is going to be devastating to some.

The amendments that are not already included in the underlying bill that are in this amendment would be devastating to the hard-working farm families, particularly in my State but in other Southern States where we grew those commodities that are grown in the controlled environment, which results most devastatingly in the outsourcing of a significant amount of America's agricultural production. Eighty-five percent of the rice that is consumed is grown in this country. Over half of that is grown in my State of Arkansas. If we outsource those jobs in rural America, if we outsource the production of that unbelievable staple commodity, it is not going to go somewhere else in this country. It is going go to our two biggest competitors more than likely. It is going to go to Vietnam and Thailand.

When you look at the lack of restriction and the techniques that are used in their growing processes, you are going to realize it is not something we want to do, to outsource what we already have, and that is, a safe production of a staple food source, not just for us but also in terms of what we do globally.

Let me reiterate what outsourcing would mean. It means importing rice from those places like I mentioned, where there is no environmental regulation between sewer water or regular water on crops that are grown there. Is that what American families want? Is that what American mothers want in terms of looking at what they are going to do when they serve that rice cereal to that new infant who is just learning to eat solid foods?

Are they going to want to be reassured that what they are dealing with is a domestic product that has been regulated in how it was grown by American standards? Are they going to want to give that up and just look to the consequences of what might happen in terms of imported commodities?

I would argue that is a price far too high for us to pay. I think the American people are very serious about wanting a safe and affordable food supply. We should be very grateful for the wonderful bounty that our farmers and ranchers provide this Nation. We should support them with a modest safety net so they can continue to provide this Nation and the world with this incredible safe, abundant, affordable supply of food and fiber on the globe.

It is disappointing to me that some in the Chamber and those in the media and special interest groups would take this for granted. You know, if we look at what this costs us, the investment it makes, 15 percent of this bill is in the commodity's title. One-half of 1 percent of the entire budget goes to this insurance policy of assuring America's families they are going to get a safe food supply.

It is also disappointing that some in this Chamber would speak about the dangers of poisoned food entering the country and jobs leaving the country and not make the connection to this vital piece of legislation providing this great country of ours with both safe food and jobs in rural America.

Now, I know agricultural policy is not the most glamorous issue to some Members. I know I probably bored some of my colleagues to tears discussing the intricacies of this farm bill, and the ramifications of this amendment particularly. So if my colleagues take nothing else away from my remarks today----

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

If the Senators take nothing else away from my remarks today, please hear this: We have included the most significant reform in farm program history in the underlying bill. In the great balance and the productive piece that we produced out of the Senate Agriculture Committee that was passed by unanimous consent, not one dissenting vote, and I challenge anyone to say that is not the case, that this is not the most significant reform that we have ever provided in a farm bill. It is.

We also were very cautious not to get so close to the line that we end up outsourcing our food supply. I think that is very important to America's families across this great country. No American wants our country to rely on foreign sources of food like we do foreign sources of oil. We did not get there overnight, but we are there.

We depend on foreign oil right now. And, unfortunately, if this happens, we are going to see 10 to 15 years from now that we are becoming dependent on foreign countries for our food source. If we do not have the courage to inform the American people of that fact, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.

I urge each of you and your staffs to take a moment and look at this bill and the reforms that we have made. They are significant, and they should be enough for critics of farm policy, who, I suggest to you, will never be satisfied. Those who condemn us, those who condemn us for not taking the extra amount in terms of the reform that Senators Grassley and Dorgan want to take, will never be happy with any amount of reform. They will only be happy when we eliminate the safety net that we provide farmers, but in a slightly different way.

A vote against the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is still a vote for the most significant farm program reform in the history of our country.

I would like to take a moment and walk through the reforms included in the bill. I will wait for a later moment to do that. I certainly want to encourage my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan-Grassley amendment.

First of all, I want to correct something. Senator Grassley had some concerns about my comments earlier, and they may have been misinterpreted. Senator Grassley is a champion for his farmers, no question about it. I have no doubt about that. I didn't say it would eliminate the subsidy program. What I said the amendment would do is eliminate our ability as farmers in southern States in terms of being able to mitigate our risks without that marketing loan, uncapped as it is in current law. I wanted to make sure he knows.

Madam President, I want to take a few minutes to walk through some of the reforms in this bill that people should be proud of. Over the past 5 years, I ever consistently heard press accounts unfairly characterizing farm programs. All too often, the accounts are very misleading--and that is a nice

way of saying it. However, as members of those States, we rely on a strong farm safety net. I paid close attention to that criticism. I have taken it personally because I believe it unfairly calls into question the character and integrity of my farmers, the hard-working farm families I am proud to represent in the Senate. Largely because they are hard working, they are salt-of-the-Earth people, and they go by the rules. The fact is, they may farm something different, and they may farm a little differently than others, but they are still the hard- working farm families of this country.

We have eliminated today in the underlying Senate Agriculture Committee bill some of the often cited loopholes, the so-called three- entity rule, and banned the use of generic certificates, which producers use to make their entire crop eligible for the marketing loan cap in less transparent ways. We have been asked to be transparent, and that is what we have done.

For reformers, the underlying bill also creates direct attribution of program benefits to a ``warm body'' by requiring the Secretary to track payments to a natural person regardless of the nature of the farming operation earning these payments.

Folks also wanted to dramatically lower the overall level that an individual farmer can receive. That is what we have done.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here and represent those great farmers. I want to say to all of my colleagues that a vote against the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is still a vote for the most significant reform in the history of our farm bill.